finalized and the case filed.” The State, in turn, in its reply of December 15, 1994, has globally held “that [with regard to all the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, which by reason of the date include the proceedings in question, N 24519] they show that domestic remedies have not been exhausted.” In sum: (a) the exact date on which the ruling became final and was notified is not known, and (b) the State, by maintaining that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted, forfeits the right to argue any failure in complying with filing period in connection with this case. Consequently, the Commission declares that said requirement has been met in respect of these proceedings. Regarding the alleged torture 50. The proper remedy was proceedings N 24079 (for maltreatment and removal of the medical file). The Supreme Court’s final ruling was handed down on April 15, 1997, and notice was given over the following days. Consequently, as regards this aspect of the case, the requirement has been met. Regarding the alleged denial of a fair trial 51. The proper remedy was proceedings N 32989, “for irregularities in the proceedings [24079, allegedly committed by unidentified police and judicial officers].” The final ruling issued by the investigating judge is dated February 21, 1995, and notice was given over the following days. Consequently, as regards this aspect of the case, the requirement has been met. 52. In sum, the filing period requirement has been met as regards the alleged deprivation of personal liberty, torture, and denial of a fair trial. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 53. There is no evidence to indicate that the substance of the petition is pending settlement in any other international proceeding or that it is substantially similar to another case already examined by the Commission or any other supranational agency. d. Nature of the allegations 54. After the analysis of the Commission’s competence and of the formal requirements for admissibility, the substance of the case has been reduced to the following allegations: arbitrary arrest (illegal deprivation of personal liberty); torture; and denial of the right to a fair trial. The next step is to determine whether, if the allegations are confirmed, they constitute prima facie violations of the Convention as required by Article 47.b. Regarding the alleged arbitrary arrest — illegal deprivation of personal liberty (Convention, Article 7) 55 The Commission notes that the petitioner’s allegations refer to the arrest warrant issued against him by National Criminal Investigating Court N 30 and carried out on April 5, 1988. 56. There is nothing in the petitioner’s submissions that would allow the Commission to conclude that these allegations constitute a breach of the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention regarding the right to personal liberty. The petitioner was arrested “for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the laws of Argentina].” 8